DON'T ASK FOR THE LATIN MASS, JUST DO IT

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB or Messenger. 

Cardinal Blase Cupich, appointed by Bergoglio to the CDW, performs a Chinese lion-awakening ritual

"We do not ask “May we use the traditional rites?” We simply use them. ... In the midst of a chaotic and embarrassing mess like this, Catholics who love the liturgy can no longer look to the pope or the Roman dicasteries for serious guidance or consistent principles" - Dr Peter Kwasniewski.

"The good citizen should know how to disobey civil authority, and the good Catholic how to do the same with ecclesiastical authority, disobeying whenever the authority demands obedience to an iniquitous order"- Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò. 

For all practical purposes, the Catholic Church in New Zealand is in schism. That was obvious on the Feast of the Visitation when the Metropolitan of New Zealand, Cardinal John Dew, addressed hand-picked liberals and fellow travellers at the National Synod, from which traditional Catholics had been excluded or were asked to leave. 

The schism was emphasised by +Dew and his fellow bishops' apparent complaisance in sharing the Synod space with a blasphemous 'Rainbow' image of the traditional Polish icon, the Black Madonna, which utterly appalled the uninvited traditional Catholic infiltrators.

Dr Kwasniewski, who brilliantly exposes all the "falsehoods" enshrined in the Responsa ad Dubia of the Congregation of Divine Worship (CDW), assures us that"the way forward for Catholics is obvious".  

We do not ask “May we use the traditional rites?” We simply use them. They are beautiful and fitting. They are the Church’s perennial lex orandi and lex credendi— that which Catholics have always done and believed and should always do and believe.

Such worship is dignum et justum in the sight of God and man. Papalism, positivism, and progressivism have shown themselves to be dead-ends. Our work is to take up the Roman liturgy as it existed in its plenitude before the ideologues and construction-workers ransacked it, and carry it forward to future generations.

Dr Kwasniewski enumerates thirty-three (how significant is that number!) falsehoods in Archbishop Arthur Roche's CDW Responsa: 

"When Pope Francis (Address to the participants in the 68th National Liturgical Week, Rome, 24 August 2017) reminds us that “after this magisterium, after this long journey, We can affirm with certainty and with magisterial authority that the liturgical reform is irreversible” he wants to point us to the only direction in which we are joyfully called to turn our commitment as pastors."

Dr Kwasniewski's response to that particular responsum : 

This sentence enshrines the error that the liturgical reform as sketched out by Vatican II, elaborated by the Consilium, and enacted by Paul VI is “irreversible.” It should not require an advanced degree to see that if Pius V’s reform, mandated by an ecumenical council and enacted by the highest authority, was not irreversible, then neither is Paul VI’s. Liturgists and canonists know that there is nothing irreversible in matters of prudential decisions about liturgical discipline—although there is indeed something irreversible in the “canonization” of a rite as a pure expression of the Church’s perennial faith, which is what we find in Pius V’s Quo Primum. 

As Gregory DiPippo rightly points out (here and here), the history of liturgy is full of initiatives that have later been reassessed and reversed. And inasmuch as “organic development” names a characteristic of great importance, it is at the very least reasonable to maintain that recent, controversial, and troublesome novelties should be put aside in favor of a return to perennial practice that has already proved its worth and continues to do so wherever it is followed.

Let’s consider the Orwellian-sounding phrase “the only direction in which we are joyfully called to turn our commitment.” The only direction? In the past seventy years we have seen a pope radically change Holy Week, and only fourteen years later, another pope radically change it again; we have seen a pope who claimed the old rites could never be used, followed by a pope who said bishops should be generous in allowing their use, followed by a pope who said no permission was ever necessary because they had not been abrogated, followed by a pope who said not only is permission necessary, but actually the old rites no longer express the faith of the Church—and, by the way, an episcopal ignoramus from the CDW tells us that they were abrogated after all (see #17 below), yet without being able to point to a single instrument by which such a momentous act was attempted or achieved.  https://onepeterfive.com/thirty-three-falsehoods-responsa/

 A word about Peter Kwasniewski PhD: 

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski is a graduate of Thomas Aquinas College and The Catholic University of America who taught at the International Theological Institute in Austria, the Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Austria Program, and Wyoming Catholic College, which he helped establish in 2006. Today he is a full-time writer and speaker on traditional Catholicism whose work appears online at, among others, OnePeterFive, New Liturgical Movement, LifeSiteNews, The Remnant, and Catholic Family News. He has published eighteen books, including Reclaiming Our Roman Catholic Birthright: The Genius and Timeliness of the Traditional Latin Mass (Angelico, 2020), The Ecstasy of Love in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Emmaus, 2021), and Are Canonizations Infallible? Revisiting a Disputed Question (Arouca, 2021). His work has been translated into at least eighteen languages. Visit his website at www.peterkwasniewski.com.

 

Archbishop Viganò (ex-papal US nuncio and whistle-blower extraordinaire) would seem very much on net with Dr Kwasniewski. Viganò appeals to Catholics world-wide basically to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). In an interview with Steve Bannon (July 1) +Viganò states that:

Respect for authority is connatural to civilized man, but it is necessary to distinguish between obedience and servility. You see, every virtue consists of the just mean between two opposite vices, without being a compromise, but also as the peak between two valleys, so to speak. Disobedience sins by falling short, not wanting to submit to a good order of a legitimate authority; servility on the other hand sins by excess, submitting to unfair orders or orders given by an illegitimate authority. The good citizen should know how to disobey civil authority, and the good Catholic how to do the same with ecclesiastical authority, disobeying whenever the authority demands obedience to an iniquitous order.

Steve Bannon: Doesn’t such talk seem to be a bit revolutionary, Your Excellency?

+Vigano:Far from it. The anarchists and courtiers both have a distorted concept of authority: the former deny it while the latter idolize it. The just mean is the only morally viable way, because it responds to the order that the Lord has imprinted on the world and that respects the celestial hierarchy. We owe obedience to legitimate authority in the measure in which its power is exercised for the purposes for which authority has been established by God: the temporal good of citizens in the case of the State and the spiritual good of the faithful in the case of the Church. An authority that imposes evil on its subjects

... for example, a demand that its subjects submit - as 'an act of love' - to an unnecessary, immoral and highly hazardous injection ... 

is for that very reason illegitimate and its orders are null.

Let’s not forget that the true Lord from whom all authority comes is God, and that the earthly authority – civil as well as spiritual – is always vicarious, that is, it is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ, King and High Priest. Setting up the vicarious authority of rulers in the place of the royal authority of the Lord is a mad gesture and – yes – revolutionary and rebellious. https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/interview-with-archbishop-carlo-maria?

 

Woe unto You, Scribes and Pharisees
James Tissot